Hell, if you created 4 teams in the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba and Mexico, those teams would be infinitely more interesting than the teams at the bottom of the league in attendance. (Marlins, Rays, etc.)

Of course, there would be off the field issues to worry about, but that's someone else's problem.

No way those places can support MLB financially.

Yeah.....no player wants to have to live most of the season in the cartel infested Mexico City. Not gonna happen.

Before expansion, I'd like to see the relocation of franchises that have terrible fan support. Tampa Bay needs to relocate. Oakland is looking like a prime candidate, too. Florida doesn't need two teams with terrible attendance and the Bay Area can just focus on SF.

And while it worked for us, MLB needs to curb tanking. There's no need to expand when you have a handful of teams each year not even trying to field a competitive team.

Time to fire Hinch and get some new blood in here. With guys like La Russa and Torre available it's too bad Crane won't spend any money to hire a good manager.

iBrad said:

---

Before expansion, I'd like to see the relocation of franchises that have terrible fan support. Tampa Bay needs to relocate. Oakland is looking like a prime candidate, too. Florida doesn't need two teams with terrible attendance and the Bay Area can just focus on SF.

And while it worked for us, MLB needs to curb tanking. There's no need to expand when you have a handful of teams each year not even trying to field a competitive team.

---

Wouldn't be awesome if MLB could change things up and make it like English Premier League?

The bottom 4 teams would drop to Triple A each year and the top Triple A teams got promoted to MLB.

In all seriousness, the Rays need to relocate. The A's have fan support, but the stadium is awful. Maybe that is Tampa's problem as well.

I think MLB's main issue has to do with the rich teams get richer and the middle market teams get phased out. They have to resort to tanking to build up their farm systems to eventually be competitive. Teams like Boston, NYY, LA, Chicago -- they sign the big FAs because they have the extra money to overpay.

Baseball needs a salary cap, IMO, to keep payrolls in check. Also, signing bonuses need to be controlled.

But, the Players Association would never go for that.

Ag_07 said:

---

Time to fire Hinch and get some new blood in here. With guys like La Russa and Torre available it's too bad Crane won't spend any money to hire a good manager.

---

Nobody here is calling for that

Buck Compton said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

We all know our starters are great, but is everyone aware just how great?

AL Only

ERA
1. Verlander - 1.21
2. Cole - 1.43
3. Morton - 2.03
13. Keuchel - 3.10
24. McCullers - 3.72

---

With these ERA's.... there are zero excuses for this team not being at least 32-10 right now.

---

I don't want this ridiculous comment to get lost among all the MLB expansion talk

"AT LEAST 32-10"... As in a start to the season that would be Top 5 of all time (most of which were pre-WW2)... basically having to match the 98 Yanks or 01 Mariners... as a minimum acceptable start.

---

I would argue our pitching has been top 5 all-time good.

Baseball needs an end to Garuanted contracts but that would never happen.

I've always thought a salary cap would be great for baseball. The one thing the NFL has going for them is that aspect. It creates a competitive league where nearly every team has a shot.

This will never happen tho because that would harm the Dodger, Cubs, Yankees, and Red Sox. Those teams have all the power as they bring in most of the money.

Most we'll ever see in MLB is a salary floor.

BowSowy said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

We all know our starters are great, but is everyone aware just how great?

AL Only

ERA
1. Verlander - 1.21
2. Cole - 1.43
3. Morton - 2.03
13. Keuchel - 3.10
24. McCullers - 3.72

---

With these ERA's.... there are zero excuses for this team not being at least 32-10 right now.

---

I don't want this ridiculous comment to get lost among all the MLB expansion talk

"AT LEAST 32-10"... As in a start to the season that would be Top 5 of all time (most of which were pre-WW2)... basically having to match the 98 Yanks or 01 Mariners... as a minimum acceptable start.

---

You laugh.... but has a team ever had all 5 of its starters in the Top 25 ERA before through the first 42 games? I'd venture to guess the 98 Yankees and 01 mariners didn't.

Also 32-10 is only a 6 game difference. How many games this season has our offense let our starting pitching down? I can count at least 5 games where we scored <2 runs while our starters had incredible games and should have gotten the win.

vs Rangers (L, 0-1)
@ DBacks (L, 1-3)
vs Angels (L, 0-2)
@ Mariners (L, 1-2)
vs Rangers (L, 1-3 in 10)

If in those 5 games our offense had a pulse, we are 31-11. So my thing of saying 32-10 wasn't that crazy given that we easily could have that record with the games I listed above

---

No, it's a ridiculous comment. There's a reason an incredibly minuscule amount of teams have achieved that record. It's baseball. The offense can be off on a given night. The starters can be off on a given night. The bullpen can be off on a given night.

This thread is sometimes infuriating because I feel like a lot of people just started watching last October. On paper arguments work less here than any other sport.

---

I've been watching the Astros since elementary school (2001ish) .... so I didn't just start in October. All I'm saying is our pitchers are having a Historic start to the season and we were in 2nd place in the division a couple of days ago. I have zero fears of us not winning the division.... I'm just saying our staff is having the best start of any 5 man rotation in MLB history ... or recent history. We should be better than 26-16. We will still win 95+ games this year. You missed the point of my post.

Agnzona said:

---

Baseball needs an end to Garuanted contracts but that would never happen.

---

Owners would just all have to agree to do it. I heard once that the only reason the NFL gets away without guaranteed contracts is that it's 100% aligned with the owners and they won't negotiate on it

NBA and MLB could do it in theory, just no clue would they have to give up in return

The next CBA should be fun. The MLBPA was too focused on off days and get-away day start times this last go around and wound up with a very owner-friendly agreement.

tjholley17 said:

---

BowSowy said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

Buck Compton said:

---

tjholley17 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

We all know our starters are great, but is everyone aware just how great?

AL Only

ERA
1. Verlander - 1.21
2. Cole - 1.43
3. Morton - 2.03
13. Keuchel - 3.10
24. McCullers - 3.72

---

With these ERA's.... there are zero excuses for this team not being at least 32-10 right now.

---

I don't want this ridiculous comment to get lost among all the MLB expansion talk

"AT LEAST 32-10"... As in a start to the season that would be Top 5 of all time (most of which were pre-WW2)... basically having to match the 98 Yanks or 01 Mariners... as a minimum acceptable start.

---

You laugh.... but has a team ever had all 5 of its starters in the Top 25 ERA before through the first 42 games? I'd venture to guess the 98 Yankees and 01 mariners didn't.

Also 32-10 is only a 6 game difference. How many games this season has our offense let our starting pitching down? I can count at least 5 games where we scored <2 runs while our starters had incredible games and should have gotten the win.

vs Rangers (L, 0-1)
@ DBacks (L, 1-3)
vs Angels (L, 0-2)
@ Mariners (L, 1-2)
vs Rangers (L, 1-3 in 10)

If in those 5 games our offense had a pulse, we are 31-11. So my thing of saying 32-10 wasn't that crazy given that we easily could have that record with the games I listed above

---

No, it's a ridiculous comment. There's a reason an incredibly minuscule amount of teams have achieved that record. It's baseball. The offense can be off on a given night. The starters can be off on a given night. The bullpen can be off on a given night.

This thread is sometimes infuriating because I feel like a lot of people just started watching last October. On paper arguments work less here than any other sport.

---

I've been watching the Astros since elementary school (2001ish) .... so I didn't just start in October. All I'm saying is our pitchers are having a Historic start to the season and we were in 2nd place in the division a couple of days ago. I have zero fears of us not winning the division.... I'm just saying our staff is having the best start of any 5 man rotation in MLB history ... or recent history. We should be better than 26-16. We will still win 95+ games this year. You missed the point of my post.

---

32-10 is a stretch, but essentially I've been saying on this thread that this team has been "unlucky" when it comes to sequencing all year. According to Fangraphs Baseruns the Astros should be 30-12, so not far off. For them to be 32-10 they would have had to been lucky in the sequencing side of things.

https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=BaseRuns

To be fair, 30-12 is what they should be with an offense hitting below what their capable of (using last year as a comparison). So it's not too far fetched to think with neutral luck and an offense performing a little more to their capability that they could be 32-10

CSWendt said:

---

To be fair, 30-12 is what they should be with an offense hitting below what their capable of (using last year as a comparison). So it's not too far fetched to think with neutral luck and an offense performing a little more to their capability that they could be 32-10

---

Right. The team is talented enough to have started 32-10, but it is ridiculous to say that there's "no excuse" to be worse than that.

Angles with then home field disadvantage tonight.

Astros home vs. road record, 12-10/14-6

Angles home vs. road record, 10-12/14-4

So far four of the six division leaders have better records on the road than at home.

Mr.Bond said:

---

titanmaster_race said:

---

At least half of baseball fandom would burn itself down over realigning teams between NL and AL.

---

Exactly. No chance they break up the nl central or AL east imo. A team in Mexico would be beyond stupid. No FA is going to live in that **** hole corrupt place

---

It's true that you don't have to have lived in Fallujah to know it's not a nice place, But I wonder how many people commenting on Mexico City have actually been there.

I bet even fewer have been to Venezuela, the Dominican republic, Cuba and other Latin countries whose Spanish-speaking baseball players would not only consider Mexico City to be a step above what they are used to, but would also love the city and feel at home speaking Spanish.

One thing that's for sure is the house would be packed. I'm not sure that I'd rather play in an empty stadium in one of our own domestic ****holes like Detroit than I would in front of a packed house in Mexico City.

DVC2010 said:

---

CSWendt said:

---

To be fair, 30-12 is what they should be with an offense hitting below what their capable of (using last year as a comparison). So it's not too far fetched to think with neutral luck and an offense performing a little more to their capability that they could be 32-10

---

Right. The team is talented enough to have started 32-10, but it is ridiculous to say that there's "no excuse" to be worse than that.

---

irish pete ag06 said:

---

When expansion comes up I always go back to this article and think this guy has the right idea. Any of these would make more sense.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-would-a-post-expansion-mlb-look-like/

To me, baseball would do itself a favor by having the divsions as tight as possible regionally.

Think about the attendance bump every time the White Sox and Cubs would play, or the Nats and Orioles, Mets and Yankees. Hell even our attendance numbers are higher any time the Astros and Rangers play. I wish I could find the numbers on this but it would take a lot of Google Sheet work to do it.

Plus this from just a few days ago

Add Charlotte and Montreal and do this:

---

Interesting idea, but there's a 0.0% chance the MLB breaks up many of its very established rivalries.

Edit: actually, looking at this is keeps the classic rivalries in tact. I still don't think the MLB would approve this widespread swap of NL and AL teams

True.

I posted earlier that you would probably have to have larger division maybe four divisions of eight teams. I'm not sure what the answer is and I doubt there is one that wouldn't piss a lot of people off, but having the majority of your games in the same time zone is something I think most people would get behind.

No doubt, I'd love to have these west coast games be an occasional thing. I also agree with the idea of getting rid of divisions.

AgDoc03 said:

---

Can they start the game already so we can get back to the Gattis resurrection, sending Jake down, cutting Sipp, the unsolved mystery of Altuve's power and bringing Ted up to the big leagues

---

Sipp has retired two batters in a row. I am becoming a fan.

DVC2010 said:

---

AgDoc03 said:

---

Can they start the game already so we can get back to the Gattis resurrection, sending Jake down, cutting Sipp, the unsolved mystery of Altuve's power and bringing Ted up to the big leagues

---

Sipp has retired two batters in a row. I am becoming a fan.

---

I remember this convo with Kenneth

Harry Dunne said:

---

Mr.Bond said:

---

titanmaster_race said:

---

At least half of baseball fandom would burn itself down over realigning teams between NL and AL.

---

Exactly. No chance they break up the nl central or AL east imo. A team in Mexico would be beyond stupid. No FA is going to live in that **** hole corrupt place

---

It's true that you don't have to have lived in Fallujah to know it's not a nice place, But I wonder how many people commenting on Mexico City have actually been there.

I bet even fewer have been to Venezuela, the Dominican republic, Cuba and other Latin countries whose Spanish-speaking baseball players would not only consider Mexico City to be a step above what they are used to, but would also love the city and feel at home speaking Spanish.

One thing that's for sure is the house would be packed. I'm not sure that I'd rather play in an empty stadium in one of our own domestic ****holes like Detroit than I would in front of a packed house in Mexico City.

---

I think you aren't taking into account the family aspect of most of these guys. While the Latin countries are home, and some live their in the off-season, I doubt they will all be giddy to raise their families there. Relocating is less about how they feel playing somewhere as it is about moving their family there.

Even a place like Puerto Rico would pack the house, but crime rates are extremely high, the standard of living is significantly lower.

Mexico City proper is wealthy & some parts are very nice. Wealthier than many current MLB cities. You can stay pretty insulated there, just like you can in the right parts of crimey cities like Detroit.